In a dramatic turn of events at the United Nations nuclear watchdog, Iran has withdrawn a draft resolution that sought to ban attacks on nuclear facilities, following intense international pressure and a backdrop of recent conflict with Israel and the United States. The move, made public late Thursday, comes just months after an unprecedented bombing campaign by Israel against Iran in June 2025, which triggered a 12-day war and saw both Israeli and US strikes targeting key Iranian nuclear sites.
According to NDTV, the draft resolution, jointly submitted by Iran, Belarus, China, Nicaragua, Russia, and Venezuela, condemned the June 2025 attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities as "deliberate and unlawful" and called them "clear violations of international law." The resolution, presented at the annual general conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), stated unequivocally that nuclear facilities safeguarded by the IAEA "shall not be subject to any kind of attack or threat of attack," warning that such actions pose "serious risks to... international peace and security... and undermine the overall credibility and integrity of the non-proliferation regime."
But in a surprising reversal, Iranian Ambassador Reza Najafi announced at the IAEA meeting that the resolution would not be put to a vote. Najafi explained, "A large number of IAEA member states... have stated in separate contacts with Iran and other sponsors of the resolution that they are under severe pressure and intimidation from the United States not to vote in favour of the resolution." Several diplomats, as reported by AFP, confirmed that the US had signaled it would reduce its voluntary contribution to the IAEA budget if the resolution passed, causing concern among developing countries that rely on technical cooperation projects with the agency.
This diplomatic standoff comes on the heels of the most significant direct conflict between Iran and Israel in recent memory. In mid-June, Israel launched a sustained bombing campaign on Iranian soil, targeting nuclear sites and escalating into a broader war that lasted nearly two weeks. The United States, in close coordination with Israel, joined the operation, deploying advanced weaponry and military assets in what was dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer.
The Pentagon, in a detailed briefing and budget document released in August, confirmed that American aircraft used a combination of precision bombs and rockets during the strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The arsenal included GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bombs (SDBs), laser-guided APKWS II rockets, and the formidable GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bunker-busters. B-2 stealth bombers dropped 14 MOPs on the heavily fortified nuclear sites at Fordow and Natanz, while a US submarine—likely the USS Georgia—fired more than two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Isfahan nuclear complex.
Operation Midnight Hammer was a massive undertaking, involving 125 aircraft, including F-22 Raptors, F-35 fighters, and dozens of refueling tankers. General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters after the mission, "The US protection package employed high-speed suppression weapons to ensure safe passage of the strike package." He noted that decoys and high-speed suppression weapons were critical in clearing Iranian air defenses ahead of the main assault.
The operation’s financial and logistical scale was equally significant. According to the Pentagon’s budget reprogramming request, the US sought Congressional approval to shift $636 million to replace weapons expended during the strike and to support Israel’s defense. The budget breakdown included $123 million to replenish the 14 MOPs used—putting the average cost per bomb at nearly $8.8 million—$2.3 million for Small Diameter Bombs, $3.3 million for APKWS II rockets, $9.9 million for temporary lodging of US personnel, and a staggering $498 million for Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) interceptors deployed to shield Israel from retaliatory missile attacks.
Interestingly, while the inclusion of APKWS II rockets in the budget raised eyebrows, analysts cited by the Pentagon believe these were more likely used to defend Israel from Iranian drone and missile barrages rather than as part of the direct strike on Iranian nuclear sites. The rockets, typically fired from F-15s, F-16s, A-10s, and helicopters, are well-suited for targeting drones or incoming cruise missiles.
Amidst this military and diplomatic turmoil, Iran’s relationship with the IAEA has remained tense but not entirely severed. In the week preceding the withdrawal of the resolution (around September 13-19, 2025), Iran agreed to a new framework for cooperation with the IAEA after previously suspending collaboration in response to the Israeli and US attacks. This fragile détente was immediately tested by the looming threat of renewed international sanctions.
The United Nations Security Council was set to vote on Friday, September 20, 2025, on whether to reimpose stringent economic sanctions on Tehran over its contested nuclear program. In a last-ditch effort to avert this outcome, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated on September 19 that he had presented a "fair and balanced" nuclear proposal to European powers. The goal, he said, was to prevent the return of UN sanctions and to keep diplomatic channels open with the West.
The withdrawal of Iran’s resolution at the IAEA highlights the complex interplay between military action, diplomacy, and international law in the region. While Iran and its allies framed the June attacks as violations of global norms, the United States and Israel have argued that such measures were necessary to prevent Iran from advancing its nuclear ambitions—a stance that has found both support and opposition among the international community.
For many IAEA member states, the US’s threat to cut funding posed a difficult dilemma. As one diplomat told AFP, "Several developing countries that have technical cooperation projects with the agency were concerned over such threats." The specter of reduced funding for crucial nuclear safety and development programs weighed heavily on countries that rely on the IAEA’s expertise and resources.
At the same time, the episode has exposed the vulnerabilities of the global non-proliferation regime. The withdrawn resolution’s language—asserting that attacks on safeguarded nuclear facilities undermine the credibility and integrity of the system—echoes longstanding concerns among non-nuclear states about the politicization of international norms and the selective enforcement of rules.
As the dust settles from both the battlefield and the diplomatic arena, the future of Iran’s nuclear program—and the broader stability of the Middle East—remains uncertain. The events of 2025 have underscored just how quickly the balance can shift, and how deeply the actions of a few powerful states can reverberate across the international system.
With the Security Council’s vote on sanctions looming and Iran’s nuclear proposal on the table, all eyes are on Vienna and New York. The coming days may well determine whether the world steps back from the brink—or edges closer to another crisis.